The Financial System and Money Supply

Maria Thomas48 said:Maybe it would have been more appropriate if Sisyphus had answered me instead of crimsonfalcon10. If anyone wants to be a masochist, that's their call. But honestly, anyone advocating for preserving this credit-based system is just being a masochist.

I feel like I've shown countless times that the current system has a deliberate flaw designed to prevent actual prosperity. I lay it out using logic, math, and undeniable examples, and the response I get is always something like: "That doesn't apply to us. We want to work until we're 95. We want our past labor to turn into nothing so we're forced to keep working." That’s just how a 20-year-old thinks. By the time you hit 60, you'll be completely burnt out from the factories, the shifts, the bosses, the meager paychecks, and you'll be counting down the days until retirement—even if it's for pennies—just so you don't have to look at the same faces at work every single day. And now you're telling me it's fine for my savings to just evaporate on its own right when I need them most, at a time when I won't be able to pick up extra side gigs after hours. That is pure, unadulterated masochism.

The government moved to push the women's retirement age up to 65 today. What happens in twenty years? Maybe we'll be working until 75? They try to "fix" flaws in the Constitution by just extending the working life. What's the limit here—working until death or becoming disabled? If they keep applying this logic, I'm certain we'll see a massive spike in disability claims. You could also expect an increase in suicides among older, capable people because some might prefer that over being left disabled by some "accidental" mishap.

This is a bit of a tangent, but it's the main point. Working forever isn't the answer. We should be using our brains to find a better way. Labor alone won't pull us out of a crisis (look at Japan for example). We need to expose this scam as soon as possible, rather than defending it as the only viable solution. I assume you all want a better future for your kids. By supporting this system, you're ensuring they won't have one (unless you happen to be a banker).

Regards

🙂 The 2% of people who understand how the system works can live comfortably without working, but 98% of people will live this way... that's reality... though those 2% must take care of the other 98% and somewhat 'fairly' direct capital toward them... especially since we must ensure the satisfaction of the masses doesn't drop below a critical level... because if the masses get angry, anything can happen...

I came across this topic today and it's fascinating... we share similar views regarding the amount of money in circulation... if that were the only variable in the system, it would be easy... but we have one pump driving that mass of money, and that is psychology, which is highly unpredictable and volatile, jumping quickly from optimism to pessimism... and that's where the problem lies, because economic growth is built on optimism, not just an increase in the money supply... that's why these market crashes happen...

Cheers!

crimsonfalcon10 said:Few economists truly grasp the core of their own field... what you've laid out here is the truth. Inflation is essentially a scam against savers, yet it remains a necessity for progress. It serves as a constant nudge, forcing people to work harder and refine their skills because it erodes accumulated value. You can't just sit back and rely on interest from old savings to fund a carefree retirement. People simply need to realize they have to stay active and keep learning throughout their entire lives; very few will ever be able to live solely off what they've already produced.

Just when you think this debate has been boiled down to two predictable sides, a new star like Danica shows up to shake things up.

🙏 🙏 🙏

crimsonfalcon10 said:Few economists truly grasp the core of their own field... what you've laid out here is the truth. Inflation is essentially a scam against savers, yet it remains a necessity for progress. It serves as a constant nudge, forcing people to work harder and refine their skills because it erodes accumulated value. You can't just sit back and rely on interest from old savings to fund a carefree retirement. People simply need to realize they have to stay active and keep learning throughout their entire lives; very few will ever be able to live solely off what they've already produced.

So, I guess thieves are also responsible for our "progress" now. 😬

One question on this topic: How does fiat currency actually differ from commodity-based money, like gold?

Brian Nelson4 said:So, I guess thieves are also responsible for our "progress" now. 😬

One question on this topic: How does fiat currency actually differ from commodity-based money, like gold?

So even a thief will eventually spend that stolen cash... and the local shopkeepers receiving it will be thrilled... which implies that even a criminal can be a productive member of society... he just took money out from under his mattress and put it back into circulation... 😉 meanwhile, the victim who had their funds swiped has to go out and earn more... they have to work hard to create new value all over again... unfortunately, that's just how the world works... 😉

Brian Nelson4 said:So, I guess thieves are also responsible for our "progress" now. 😬

One question on this topic: How does fiat currency actually differ from commodity-based money, like gold?

Right now, you can't really equate money with gold because the gold standard was abandoned for several different reasons.

Non-credit money could potentially replace the gold standard, provided there is controlled issuance—meaning it actually has real backing.

Money acting as credit, which is how things work today, just hides an even larger debt behind itself and leads straight to ruin. I don't see much point in explaining that again.

Politicians aren't going to provide the solution. We saw that at the G20 meeting. When trying to reach out to various parties here in America, the result is zero. I suppose there are two possible explanations. Either they trust their economists blindly, or they simply don't care about the nation's well-being. Personally, I'm more inclined to believe the second one is true, though intelligence plays a role too. I reached out to a local Republican who is just a small-timer but active within the party. He passed my evidence along to an economist acquaintance, and then everything just stopped. That economist never contacted me, and the Republican never got back to me either. It’s obvious the guy just isn't smart enough to connect all the evidence, like a puzzle, into one final picture to understand what's happening. It doesn't surprise me, since my old college classmates had similar issues with perception, even though they were all top-tier students.

Regards

Mr. crimsonfalcon10, inflation isn't some necessary evil; it's purely destructive, and within a non-credit money system, it simply doesn't exist.
Maria Thomas48, the formula I proposed for providing real backing to non-credit money remains the only logical path, given that gold carries an exorbitant cost, whereas an ideal cost should be zero.

Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. crimsonfalcon10, inflation isn't some necessary evil; it's purely destructive, and within a non-credit money system, it simply doesn't exist.
Maria Thomas48, the formula I proposed for providing real backing to non-credit money remains the only logical path, given that gold carries an exorbitant cost, whereas an ideal cost should be zero.

Is inflation necessary? Yes! It forces money out of people's mattresses and back into circulation. If we didn't have it, all that cash could theoretically just sit under a bed forever. That's why we need to print money! By using inflation, I'm reducing the power of "mattress money" so that nobody suddenly decides to spend every cent they've been hoarding all at once and crashes the entire financial system!

crimsonfalcon10 said:Is inflation necessary? Yes! It forces money out of people's mattresses and back into circulation. If we didn't have it, all that cash could theoretically just sit under a bed forever. That's why we need to print money! By using inflation, I'm reducing the power of "mattress money" so that nobody suddenly decides to spend every cent they've been hoarding all at once and crashes the entire financial system!

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Keep it up. 😁

Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. crimsonfalcon10, inflation isn't some necessary evil; it's purely destructive, and within a non-credit money system, it simply doesn't exist.
Maria Thomas48, the formula I proposed for providing real backing to non-credit money remains the only logical path, given that gold carries an exorbitant cost, whereas an ideal cost should be zero.

Well, obviously, the process of acquiring pure gold creates too much extra cost. I was looking at this from the perspective of people needing a standard unit of value. Non-credit money could provide a stable value just like gold—maybe even better, since gold is just a commodity where price depends on supply and demand.

Miroslav23, your explanation is actually quite funny, if you think about it. Mostly because it shows you don't quite get how things work here. Money isn't being printed anymore; it's being issued through credit. You should probably look up the Federal Reserve Act or the statutes governing the Federal Reserve. Most money issuance happens via loans. The only real cash flow is the interest paid by the central bank to commercial banks on their deposits. That amount is tiny, and it's way smaller than the inflation caused by all that credit expansion.

Best,

No, I just stumbled upon some absolutely fantastic claims on this last page that defy belief. Then again, these same forum users have their moments of insight. It’s just living proof that intelligence is a relative term. As Einstein might say in a poorly translated version of Dvornikov's rhythm: Move it, move it...🤣

Maria Thomas48 said:Well, obviously, the process of acquiring pure gold creates too much extra cost. I was looking at this from the perspective of people needing a standard unit of value. Non-credit money could provide a stable value just like gold—maybe even better, since gold is just a commodity where price depends on supply and demand.

Miroslav23, your explanation is actually quite funny, if you think about it. Mostly because it shows you don't quite get how things work here. Money isn't being printed anymore; it's being issued through credit. You should probably look up the Federal Reserve Act or the statutes governing the Federal Reserve. Most money issuance happens via loans. The only real cash flow is the interest paid by the central bank to commercial banks on their deposits. That amount is tiny, and it's way smaller than the inflation caused by all that credit expansion.

Best,

🤣🤣🤣

It looks like my previous claim was true after all: only 2% of people actually understand economics. The rest will spend forever searching for answers and wondering why interest rates keep climbing, why currencies fluctuate so wildly, or why my savings are worth so much less now than they were ten years ago... why everyone will eventually have to bail out Greece, Portugal, Spain, or Italy... why most people will lose their shirts when converting Swiss loans into USD... they will never grasp what the American dream actually is, or more importantly, the mechanism used to achieve it...

Mr. crimsonfalcon10, those 2% don't have the slightest grasp of macroeconomics, much less you do personally. If anyone here actually understands the mechanics at play, it’s myself and Maria Thomas48. If you bother to read closely, you might eventually catch up. I have reached out to everyone, yet not a single soul has bothered to reply. Now, my article, "non-credit money as a gift," has been published in the Communist web magazine. It appears the Communists will be led by the grandson of Josip Broz Marshall, a man named Josip Joško Broz. If these radicals adopt non-credit money as their core platform, they will conquer the entire globe within two years, establishing a world order non-credit money that will effectively send the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds into the dustbin of history. That 2% of yours will sit in silence watching it unfold, while the other 98% of people on this planet finally begin to live lives worthy of human beings.
Maria Thomas48, non-credit money
will undoubtedly prove superior to gold. Non-credit money can simply be injected into circulation—or, if necessary, pulled back from the market entirely. Dealing with gold is far more cumbersome; frankly, gold was rendered obsolete a long time ago.

Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. crimsonfalcon10, those 2% don't have the slightest grasp of macroeconomics, much less you do personally. If anyone here actually understands the mechanics at play, it’s myself and Maria Thomas48. If you bother to read closely, you might eventually catch up. I have reached out to everyone, yet not a single soul has bothered to reply. Now, my article, "non-credit money as a gift," has been published in the Communist web magazine. It appears the Communists will be led by the grandson of Josip Broz Marshall, a man named Josip Joško Broz. If these radicals adopt non-credit money as their core platform, they will conquer the entire globe within two years, establishing a world order non-credit money that will effectively send the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds into the dustbin of history. That 2% of yours will sit in silence watching it unfold, while the other 98% of people on this planet finally begin to live lives worthy of human beings.
Maria Thomas48, non-credit money
will undoubtedly prove superior to gold. Non-credit money can simply be injected into circulation—or, if necessary, pulled back from the market entirely. Dealing with gold is far more cumbersome; frankly, gold was rendered obsolete a long time ago.

we should just nationalize everything... then the problem is solved... 😉

Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. crimsonfalcon10, those 2% don't have the slightest grasp of macroeconomics, much less you do personally. If anyone here actually understands the mechanics at play, it’s myself and Maria Thomas48. If you bother to read closely, you might eventually catch up. I have reached out to everyone, yet not a single soul has bothered to reply. Now, my article, "non-credit money as a gift," has been published in the Communist web magazine. It appears the Communists will be led by the grandson of Josip Broz Marshall, a man named Josip Joško Broz. If these radicals adopt non-credit money as their core platform, they will conquer the entire globe within two years, establishing a world order non-credit money that will effectively send the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds into the dustbin of history. That 2% of yours will sit in silence watching it unfold, while the other 98% of people on this planet finally begin to live lives worthy of human beings.
Maria Thomas48, non-credit money
will undoubtedly prove superior to gold. Non-credit money can simply be injected into circulation—or, if necessary, pulled back from the market entirely. Dealing with gold is far more cumbersome; frankly, gold was rendered obsolete a long time ago.

Matthew Patel12, thanks for the high praise, but I can't accept that assessment in general. My knowledge of economics is really just knowledge regarding money regulation, and it's based on logical conclusions I've drawn from the equality of three deficits. Sure, I skimmed through some macroeconomics once or twice, but I definitely can't claim I could step in and replace the Chair of the Federal Reserve. I have no intention of building a career as an economist or as some leader of a new era. This whole initiative is purely for the common good—to educate the public and wake people up to the fact that reality isn't what they show on TV or how politicians and union leaders talk.

Here's an example of misplaced focus. In downtown Chicago, an environmental group is fighting against the construction of a single shopping center. There was some shady business involved, but it was all legal. It caused a huge fuss and panic, with hundreds of police officers out there for months. Meanwhile, something million times more important—a proven betrayal by the state against all citizens of the USA—passes without any comment, let alone any action. And plenty of forum users are actually fighting to defend the existing system. None of them realize that when the Federal Reserve established an exclusively credit-based system back in 1994, it was a massive betrayal of the American people. Everyone thinks these are exaggerations or bad judgments. Through mathematics, I've proven that under this setup, the state is headed straight for economic collapse and debt slavery. And I've been talking about this for months now. At first, I thought news like this might be life-threatening, but it turns out that human disbelief is the best way to keep the secret of the biggest financial fraud and betrayal hidden.

The latest update is that I briefly got in touch with an economist and professor. In his email, he said he didn't want to debate the topic and gave his opinion. Well, obviously, he doesn't have time for debates with a layman, but he didn't even bother checking my evidence. He rejected it a priori, assuming it wouldn't hold water. I told him I'd be happy if he could disprove it using mathematics. I don't think anything will come of it. He'll just keep teaching his students incorrectly (just like everywhere else). Still, it's progress. Out of about ten emails to former classmates from college, this was the only response. Everyone else ignores my emails.

And I'd like to tell all the "doubting Thomases" out there that it's much easier to attack something than to defend it. So, as far as I'm concerned, I am right until you prove otherwise using mathematics. Exactly the same way I proved it.

Regards
sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home

Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. crimsonfalcon10, those 2% don't have the slightest grasp of macroeconomics, much less you do personally. If anyone here actually understands the mechanics at play, it’s myself and Maria Thomas48. If you bother to read closely, you might eventually catch up. I have reached out to everyone, yet not a single soul has bothered to reply. Now, my article, "non-credit money as a gift," has been published in the Communist web magazine. It appears the Communists will be led by the grandson of Josip Broz Marshall, a man named Josip Joško Broz. If these radicals adopt non-credit money as their core platform, they will conquer the entire globe within two years, establishing a world order non-credit money that will effectively send the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds into the dustbin of history. That 2% of yours will sit in silence watching it unfold, while the other 98% of people on this planet finally begin to live lives worthy of human beings.
Maria Thomas48, non-credit money
will undoubtedly prove superior to gold. Non-credit money can simply be injected into circulation—or, if necessary, pulled back from the market entirely. Dealing with gold is far more cumbersome; frankly, gold was rendered obsolete a long time ago.

Withdrawing money doesn't necessarily trigger a production slump or a crisis... we can compensate for less money in the system by increasing the velocity of circulation...

I don't understand why everyone is so against the current system... you just need to watch the trends and jump from one asset class to another; making a profit is actually quite easy that way...

This system works perfectly fine for me... I generate enough profit through speculation across various assets to keep me satisfied... I see no reason to advocate for different systems when this one functions flawlessly... 😉

A few questions here:

• How does this new currency actually enter the system? Does the "government" pay for services using it? Sounds fine on paper. It could potentially replace taxes. But there's the catch: government equals politicians equals the elite equals human nature equals manipulation equals inflation equals shit..."
• What stops whoever is issuing any kind of unbacked currency from overprinting during a war under the guise of "national interest"? History shows us exactly how that ends. Even if you have some percentage of gold backing, or carbon "units," or whatever... it’s still too easy to overdo the issuance through political decrees or simple manipulation.

Maria Thomas48 said:Right now, you can't really equate money with gold because the gold standard was abandoned for several different reasons.

Non-credit money could potentially replace the gold standard, provided there is controlled issuance—meaning it actually has real backing.

Money acting as credit, which is how things work today, just hides an even larger debt behind itself and leads straight to ruin. I don't see much point in explaining that again.

Politicians aren't going to provide the solution. We saw that at the G20 meeting. When trying to reach out to various parties here in America, the result is zero. I suppose there are two possible explanations. Either they trust their economists blindly, or they simply don't care about the nation's well-being. Personally, I'm more inclined to believe the second one is true, though intelligence plays a role too. I reached out to a local Republican who is just a small-timer but active within the party. He passed my evidence along to an economist acquaintance, and then everything just stopped. That economist never contacted me, and the Republican never got back to me either. It’s obvious the guy just isn't smart enough to connect all the evidence, like a puzzle, into one final picture to understand what's happening. It doesn't surprise me, since my old college classmates had similar issues with perception, even though they were all top-tier students.

Regards

But what counts as actual, real backing for this non-credit money? Just some political decree that's subject to change? 😁

Nostradamus said:Just a quick thought on that quote:

You just need to design a solid oversight mechanism.

Why bother designing any kind of control when the real pros will just find a way around it anyway?
Gold doesn't permit manipulation; there's absolutely zero wiggle room there.
Let’s be realistic: everyone from local police and legislators down to the poorest citizens can be corrupted by greed because, at the end of the day, everyone dreams of turning a profit and living large. If people over the last few thousand years had actually figured out how to build foolproof oversight, they would have done it long ago. So, unless you want to propose a mechanism that leaves zero room for maneuvering, don't bother applying your model. Gold has its own built-in psychological advantage: everyone wants to earn it, but nobody wants to deal with the hassle of moving it. That's an excellent control mechanism in itself.

Brian Nelson4 said:A few questions here:

• How does this new currency actually enter the system? Does the "government" pay for services using it? Sounds fine on paper. It could potentially replace taxes. But there's the catch: government equals politicians equals the elite equals human nature equals manipulation equals inflation equals shit..."
• What stops whoever is issuing any kind of unbacked currency from overprinting during a war under the guise of "national interest"? History shows us exactly how that ends. Even if you have some percentage of gold backing, or carbon "units," or whatever... it’s still too easy to overdo the issuance through political decrees or simple manipulation.

But what counts as actual, real backing for this non-credit money? Just some political decree that's subject to change? 😁

The data on non-credit money demand basically shows one thing. It just can't act as a substitute for taxation.

Real backing for non-credit money comes from active production, not just sitting around doing nothing. You have to actually earn non-credit money; it only represents a small slice of a product's total price. Basically, it’s the profit that isn't immediately reinvested—it's how you turn surplus value into new capital. If you let that accumulate, you can use it for future investments, which means you won't need to inject as much non-credit money into the system later on. This is exactly what Mr. Stole was getting at. It’s the cycle everyone talks about: working, saving, and then investing. But that only works if the amount of non-credit money being issued is exactly what is actually needed.

Because of that whole idea that you shouldn't get something for nothing, social assistance shouldn't just be handed out for free. It really should require some kind of community service in return. I know there are already some small towns over in the States where they actually implement this kind of thing.

Funding a war—or even just defense—is an exceptional circumstance in any stable nation, provided all the other laws actually hold up. To be honest, I couldn't care less about what happens to the economy during wartime.

It’s pretty obvious that you need actual work backing up your cash flow. If someone is pulling in massive profits without doing much real labor, they’re essentially just inflating the currency—especially when they’re dealing directly with the government. My take is that any company wanting to land federal contracts in the future should have to agree to profit caps based on their total revenue. This shouldn't just apply to the big corporations either; it needs to extend to their suppliers and employees too. The government simply can't afford to be reckless with spending. When they are, it just ends up siphoning wealth away from the entire community and concentrating it into the hands of a tiny few.

I’m not saying all this because I'm some kind of dreamer or because I wish things worked this way. It isn't about idealism. These are just logical conclusions drawn from the equations. Money only actually holds value if it is literally earned through work. That is what gives it any real standing against another currency.

I’ve already mentioned my thoughts on using the velocity of money as a fix for liquidity shortages. But what I really need is some clarity here. If we assume the velocity of money increases by 4% every single year—and stays that way indefinitely—then the math gets interesting. At that rate, the velocity should double every 17 years or so. Following that logic, over an 85-year span, you’re looking at a 32-fold increase in speed.

Advocating for the way things are right now is just plain crazy. There’s no way for the current system to actually offset inflation, other than through exponential borrowing—which we already know is impossible to pay back. Every time they hike up wages, it just speeds up our slide toward a total collapse. At the end of the day, inflation is just what happens when credit expands, and that expansion only happens because people can't settle their debts without taking out even bigger loans. It's basically the Davor Šuker method. That's just how it works.

Without credit, the whole system would just grind to a halt within a few years, sliding straight into deflation and recession. It’s inevitable. It happens the moment lenders decide to tighten the tap. But here is the thing. That move would basically be suicide for them too, because once that starts happening, people will finally start looking for actual alternatives. That is exactly why Greece was handed those loans—it was just a way to buy more time. It is the same reason they come up with these bank taxes. They keep inventing new things just to stall for time. Reducing the budget deficit is just another one of those fabrications used to keep the clock ticking.

When you realize that a community's entire profit engine relies on exports, outside investments, and running a budget deficit, then everything becomes clear. It's just how the math works out. When we cut back on the deficit, the community ends up walking away with less profit. It's just how it works. You tighten the belt, you lose that extra cushion. Simple as that.It’s just going to drag more companies straight into bankruptcy. You’d have to offset that somehow—maybe through massive exports, new investments, or just piling on even larger amounts of debt. But honestly, the only way for the community to actually see a steady stream of cash profit is through a budget deficit. Of course, that has to be non-credit based. These are just facts. Even the famous economists don't really grasp this, and they spend half their time arguing for a balanced budget instead.

It’s kind of strange, isn't it? You can only really find information about non-credit money online. Not a single mainstream news outlet seems to care about it. All these claims about how unsustainable the system is... they aren't backed up by any actual math. If people actually laid out the mathematics—just like I have done here—solutions would show up immediately.

Here is that derivation again, which holds true for a closed community without credit:



Best,
sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home

Here’s the projection for the USA’s inflation-driven debt—the kind of mess you create when you try to use credit to offset a drop in purchasing power. It’s basically financial masochism in action.

Maria Thomas48 said:The data on non-credit money demand basically shows one thing. It just can't act as a substitute for taxation.

Real backing for non-credit money comes from active production, not just sitting around doing nothing. You have to actually earn non-credit money; it only represents a small slice of a product's total price. Basically, it’s the profit that isn't immediately reinvested—it's how you turn surplus value into new capital. If you let that accumulate, you can use it for future investments, which means you won't need to inject as much non-credit money into the system later on. This is exactly what Mr. Stole was getting at. It’s the cycle everyone talks about: working, saving, and then investing. But that only works if the amount of non-credit money being issued is exactly what is actually needed.

Because of that whole idea that you shouldn't get something for nothing, social assistance shouldn't just be handed out for free. It really should require some kind of community service in return. I know there are already some small towns over in the States where they actually implement this kind of thing.

Funding a war—or even just defense—is an exceptional circumstance in any stable nation, provided all the other laws actually hold up. To be honest, I couldn't care less about what happens to the economy during wartime.

It’s pretty obvious that you need actual work backing up your cash flow. If someone is pulling in massive profits without doing much real labor, they’re essentially just inflating the currency—especially when they’re dealing directly with the government. My take is that any company wanting to land federal contracts in the future should have to agree to profit caps based on their total revenue. This shouldn't just apply to the big corporations either; it needs to extend to their suppliers and employees too. The government simply can't afford to be reckless with spending. When they are, it just ends up siphoning wealth away from the entire community and concentrating it into the hands of a tiny few.

I’m not saying all this because I'm some kind of dreamer or because I wish things worked this way. It isn't about idealism. These are just logical conclusions drawn from the equations. Money only actually holds value if it is literally earned through work. That is what gives it any real standing against another currency.

I’ve already mentioned my thoughts on using the velocity of money as a fix for liquidity shortages. But what I really need is some clarity here. If we assume the velocity of money increases by 4% every single year—and stays that way indefinitely—then the math gets interesting. At that rate, the velocity should double every 17 years or so. Following that logic, over an 85-year span, you’re looking at a 32-fold increase in speed.

Advocating for the way things are right now is just plain crazy. There’s no way for the current system to actually offset inflation, other than through exponential borrowing—which we already know is impossible to pay back. Every time they hike up wages, it just speeds up our slide toward a total collapse. At the end of the day, inflation is just what happens when credit expands, and that expansion only happens because people can't settle their debts without taking out even bigger loans. It's basically the Davor Šuker method. That's just how it works.

Without credit, the whole system would just grind to a halt within a few years, sliding straight into deflation and recession. It’s inevitable. It happens the moment lenders decide to tighten the tap. But here is the thing. That move would basically be suicide for them too, because once that starts happening, people will finally start looking for actual alternatives. That is exactly why Greece was handed those loans—it was just a way to buy more time. It is the same reason they come up with these bank taxes. They keep inventing new things just to stall for time. Reducing the budget deficit is just another one of those fabrications used to keep the clock ticking.

When you realize that a community's entire profit engine relies on exports, outside investments, and running a budget deficit, then everything becomes clear. It's just how the math works out. When we cut back on the deficit, the community ends up walking away with less profit. It's just how it works. You tighten the belt, you lose that extra cushion. Simple as that.It’s just going to drag more companies straight into bankruptcy. You’d have to offset that somehow—maybe through massive exports, new investments, or just piling on even larger amounts of debt. But honestly, the only way for the community to actually see a steady stream of cash profit is through a budget deficit. Of course, that has to be non-credit based. These are just facts. Even the famous economists don't really grasp this, and they spend half their time arguing for a balanced budget instead.

It’s kind of strange, isn't it? You can only really find information about non-credit money online. Not a single mainstream news outlet seems to care about it. All these claims about how unsustainable the system is... they aren't backed up by any actual math. If people actually laid out the mathematics—just like I have done here—solutions would show up immediately.

Here is that derivation again, which holds true for a closed community without credit:



Best,
sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home

Theoretically, circulation speed could reach infinity... so an acceleration of 32 times shouldn't be an issue at all!

Why should exponential debt be considered such a massive problem? Just look around you! Every single law of nature involves an exponential function—why on earth would economics be any different?

When it comes to pulling the plug... just look at how passive the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank have been lately. Is there any other instance in history where they've played it this safe? It’s exactly what I warned about. That top 2% who hold all the capital have to act somewhat decently, and they have to make sure life remains tolerable for the other 98%. Because if that 2% decides to screw everyone over, the masses will find them easily, and things could get ugly fast. Don't worry, though—that 2% is plenty concerned about their own safety and terrified of the public.

Europe is playing it close to the vest right now... but eventually, the cash is going to be flying everywhere! Ben already sees where this is heading... if things don't shift gears, he’ll start dropping money from helicopters! Well, figuratively speaking, of course—he'll basically be handing it out for free just to keep the cycle spinning!

Look at what's happening in Greece right now... the transit strikes are already underway! This is going to gut the national budget, isn't it? It makes paying off their debt even more impossible. If the European Central Bank had just stepped in to fund them from the beginning, the bailout costs would have been significantly lower. Now, those recovery costs are just skyrocketing exponentially. But hey, I suppose they need this lesson so they can act much faster when another country hits a crisis!

Economics is actually quite simple... if you just grasp one fundamental law of nature, the entire system becomes clear. The issue? Most economists have such a superficial understanding of natural laws that it stunts their ability to truly master their own field. Their education is far too specialized, which prevents them from ever seeing the big picture. 😉